Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 19--23

Comparison of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy for treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction


Pei-Yuan Su 
 Department of Ophthalmology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan

Correspondence Address:
Pei-Yuan Su
No. 21, Sec. 2, Nan-Ya South Road, Ban-Chiao District, New Taipei City
Taiwan

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) and external DCR (EX-DCR) for the treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANLDO). DESIGN: This was a retrospective, comparative, nonrandomized clinical study. METHODS: Reviewed medical records of PANLDO underwent DCR at Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital from May 2011 to June 2017. Data regarding the lacrimal passage system, comorbidities, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Anatomical success was defined as patency confirmed by intranasal endoscopic inspection of the ostium and successful lacrimal irrigation; functional success was defined as complete resolution of epiphora and positive fluorescein dye disappearance test, which were assessed at postoperative 6th months. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy patients (37 males, 133 females, mean age 57 years) underwent 178 DCR surgeries for PANLDO. The overall anatomical success rate was 94.4% (93.5% in EN-DCR vs. 95.8% in EX-DCR, P = 0.511) and functional success rate was 90.4% (90.7% in EN-DCR and 90.1% in EX-DCR, P = 0.909). Surgical outcomes were comparable between two groups. Complication rate was low in both groups, including 11 cases of early canalicular stent dislodge (7 in EN-DCR, 4 in EX-DCR), one case of postoperative nasal bleeding in EN-DCR, and two skin wound dehiscence and three cutaneous keloid formation in EX-DCR. None of these cases were concluded into surgical failure at the final visit. The time to symptoms relief was statistical significantly shorter in EN-DCR group (1.7 vs. 3.7 weeks in EX-DCR, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Success rate of DCR for PANLDO in our study was high, and complication rate was low for both endoscopic and external approaches. There was no statistically significant difference between them. EN-DCR provided higher satisfaction due to quicker recovery and lack of external incision. Endoscopic DCR should be considered as the primary treatment of choice for PANLDO.


How to cite this article:
Su PY. Comparison of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy for treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Taiwan J Ophthalmol 2018;8:19-23


How to cite this URL:
Su PY. Comparison of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy for treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Taiwan J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Apr 5 ];8:19-23
Available from: http://www.e-tjo.org/article.asp?issn=2211-5056;year=2018;volume=8;issue=1;spage=19;epage=23;aulast=Su;type=0